WQCC Rulemaking Process Work Group


Meeting Summary
October 1, 2001

The first portion of this meeting was devoted to developing a list of criteria or goals for what constitutes a good rulemaking process. The result of this effort is attached to this summary. The meeting also included a brief review of the issues raised in the September 10, 2001 Procedural Rules informational hearing, discussion of work group members’ perspectives on the content of Issues Scoping Hearings, and development of a plan for next steps by the work group.

With respect to the adjudicatory process issues raised in the Procedural Rules informational hearing, it was agreed that once the Commission staff has prepared a draft proposal for consideration in the October, 2002 rulemaking hearing, the proposal would be brought to the work group for discussion prior to finalization.

The following next steps by this work group were agreed to:

• Paul Frohardt will circulate a list of the criteria for a good rulemaking process developed by the work group, after attempting to group the list of criteria into major categories. (This list is attached to this summary.)
• Paul Frohardt will prepare and circulate a draft description of the Issues Scoping Hearing process, taking into account today’s discussion by the work group.
• Work group members should come to the next meeting prepared to discuss their views regarding the appropriate process and expectations for an Issues Formulation Hearing, including in particular expectations regarding third parties identifying issues and supplying evidence in support of proposals.
• Keeping in mind the list of the criteria for a good rulemaking process developed by the work group, work group members will circulate to the group by email their individual proposed solutions/recommendations for changes to the Commission’s rulemaking process for water quality classifications and standards hearings. If feasible, these recommendations should be circulated by October 25, 2001, to provide everyone an opportunity to review the suggestions prior to the next work group meeting.

The agenda for the next work group meeting will focus on:

1. Review and discussion of the draft description of the Issues Scoping Hearing process that will be circulated prior to that meeting;
2. Discussion of the appropriate process and expectations for an Issues Formulation Hearing, including in particular expectations regarding third parties identifying issues and supplying evidence in support of proposals; and
3. Discussion of the proposed solutions and recommendations developed by work group members concerning potential changes to the current rulemaking process.

The following three additional meetings of the work group were scheduled:

• November 1, 2001, from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at DRCOG.
• December 3, 2001, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Board Room at CDPHE.
• January 28, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at DRCOG.

Persons attending the August 21 meeting: Paul Frohardt, Carl Norbeck, Robert Sakata, Martha Rudolph, Annette Quill, Sarah Johnson, Barbara Biggs, Mark Pifher, Chuck Wanner, Laurie Rink, John Akolt, Eileen List, Tad Foster, Jill McConaughy, Jeannette Hillery, and Russ Clayshulte.

Criteria for a Good Rulemaking Process:

A good rulemaking process is one that:

• Includes an informal process whose importance is understood and publicized.
• Encourages participation.
• Notice is broadly and effectively distributed.
• Allows alternative input at a variety of points in the process.
• Provides adequate opportunity to participate by all interests in the entire process in a balanced way.
• Provides adequate time to participate.
• Allows public participation in collection of information.
• Makes exhibits and other documents are broadly accessible.
• Is understandable.
• Includes a notice that provides a well-defined scope of issues.
• Includes predictable scheduling.
• Does not drift away from scientific basis.
• Assures that the best available scientific and factual information is brought forward.
• Provides for timely disclosures.
• Results in a high level of compliance with the process requirements.
• Avoids sandbagging.
• Conforms to requirements of the APA.
• Results in a clear record of what the Commission decided.
• Results in a Statement of Basis and Purpose that adequately records the issues raised and how they were resolved.
• Results in decisions that achieve the goals of the CWQCA.
• Minimizes the paperwork and repetitive submissions.
• Moves away from paper and toward electronic submissions.
• Is manageable for a part-time, lay Commission.
• Is manageable for the Division staff.
• Makes the information presented as useful as possible for the Commission and the parties.
• Helps narrow and focus the issues as it proceeds.
• Provides an ability to say we’re not ready to deal with this issue now.
• Encourages consensus, so long as it does not exclude others’ meaningful participation (or is this just a useful tool?).